Philosophical Phun - Poison :o)

We might think of words such as ‘courage’ as naming characteristics of human beings in respect of a certain power, as words such as ‘poison’ and ‘solvent’ and ‘corrosive’ so name the properties of physical things. I would add the word Toxic here, we all know some people that meet that definition :o) I think we can all relate to people in our lives that are poison, or are toxic, resulting in the net result of leaving a dead zone around themselves.

The power to which virtue-words are so related is the power of producing good action, and good desires. But just as poisons, solvents and corrosives do not always operate characteristically, so it could be with virtues.

If P (say arsenic) is a poison it does not follow that P acts as a poison wherever it is found. It is quite natural to say on occasion ‘P does not act as a poison here’ though P is a poison and it is P that is acting here. Similarly courage is not operating as a virtue when the murderer turns his courage, which is a virtue, to bad ends. Not surprisingly the resistance that some of us registered was not to the expression ‘the courage of the murderer’ or to the assertion that what he did ‘took courage’ but rather to the description of that action as an act of courage or a courageous act. It is not that the action could not be so described, but that the fact that courage does not here have its characteristic operation is a reason for finding the description strange.-- Philippa Foot, 'Virtues and Vices', p.16.

Source of this entry: Click here.

For this entry, the thought process that comes to mind for me is fundamental Christianity. It is so easy to profess your beliefs, but the question I have for you is, do you live your life as a virtuous person, or as poisonous person? Can you reconcile your actions with your belief's???

Science Scene: Solar - is there a toxic downside?

Everybody loves solar, the shiny superstar of renewable energy.

But scratch the surface of the manufacturing process and the green sheen disappears. Vast amounts of fossil fuels are used to produce and transport panels. Solar cells contain toxic materials. Some components can't be easily recycled.

That has some environmentalists worried about a new tidal wave of hazardous waste headed for the nation's landfills when panels eventually wear out. You can't just call your product green and close your eyes to what's happening in the supply chain. The solar energy industry is running into some of the same problems that have been seen in the electronics industry, whose waste is polluting U.S. landfills and contaminating groundwater with harmful substances such as mercury and chromium.

Solar energy supplies less than 1% of the nation's electricity at present. But the technology is poised for explosive growth. Much of the world's production is centered in Asia, but there are some disturbing trends emerging there. China is major producer of polycrystalline silicon, a key component of solar cells. The Washington Post last year documented how at least one Chinese producer was dumping a toxic byproduct from that manufacturing process on nearby farmland. Experts suspect that firms in other developing countries are taking similar shortcuts.

Davis said developing benign substitutes for some of the most dangerous materials was essential for the solar industry to be truly sustainable. Making the panels is just the beginning. Planning needs to begin now on what to do with millions of these heavy modules as they wear out in 20 to 25 years or are replaced with better technology, environmentalists say.

The high-tech industry generated more than 2.6 million tons of e-waste in the U.S. in 2005, about 87% of which ends up in landfills or incinerators. Most of the rest was exported to developing countries to be dismantled by low-wage workers, many of whom are exposed to dangerous substances lurking in the guts of personal computers and other electronics.

Solar can not go down that path. State and national governments need to consider legislation to keep cleanup costs from falling to taxpayers. Thinking about recycling of the panels in the future needs to be part of the upfront design and manufacturing process.

Source: 1/14/09, Los Angeles Times, by Marla Dickerson.